Template talk:Suffix
= Documentation = This template is used in the etymology section. Use where root is the root of the term and suffix is the suffix, excluding hyphen. For instance, a simple etymology of doing could be created with: which evaluates to: For suffixes with multiple definitions an optional parameter Suffix Section can be applied so that the correct one is linked to which results in: For suffixes or words which have more than one language defintion, a Language parameter can be added, this should be a language code: gives the ouput: Note that you can only use either ss or lang as they are mutually exclusive. See also * = Comments = I think it would be vastly better not to subst this template, nor to use it directly in most cases; it would make the most sense to use it as a meta template for more specific templates like and . -- Visviva 10:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC) English-only? Are templates and supposed to be English-only, and that's the reason why they don't accept lang= parameter (AND use which seems to be aware only of English POS)? Same question applies for those inside Category:Suffix templates and Category:Prefix templates, although I see some French stuff there but still without lang parameter and support for alternate text (so that one could link to lemma entry and display a stem). --Ivan Štambuk 00:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC) :I removed the and replaced it with the result of , because it is a general template. perhaps a third (or named) parameter can be added if people are desperate to have the styling. Conrad.Irwin 00:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC) :Why not just call with |lang= |sc= } ? Then you can use either or both as desired and get whatever customization that term gets you (including section links). :If cases are any more complicated (alt links etc), it really ought to be written as foo-stuff + bar-stuff on the page, trying to use this is overkill. It is supposed to just make things easier. Robert Ullmann 00:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Minor code modification I've replaced }}} call with }}}. For non-top-40 languages } code gets expanded into wikified version which screws up linking to language sections (compare with ). It took me a while to figure this out ( is a great tool!). Hopefully nothing is broken.. --Ivan Štambuk 20:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Categorization I would like to categorize pages that use this template with }}} words ending in "- }" but I'm not sure if that's the best category name and I don't know how is supposed to be used. DAVilla 00:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC) : That's a great idea! So far explicit categorizing has been used (Category:English nouns ending in -ism for example). {t-sect} is used quite straightforwardly: you just pass it the ISO code of parameter lang and it returns language name. : A few considerations that should be made: : 1) Some prefixes/suffixes are extremely productive in some highly inflective languages. Maybe this categorization should be applied only to lemma forms? If that is the case, than the template shouldn't be used for any of the derived forms, which could potentially have it's own specialized categorization scheme (such as Category:English plurals ending in "-es". That would however degrade the status of non-lemma terms, and how good/bad that is, I don't know, but judging with recent discussions in mind I don't think everyone would be too happy about it. OTOH, generating categories that would contain tens of thousands of bot-generated derived verb forms of Spanish verbs would be an overkill. : 2) Prefixes and suffixes could be mutated in various ways, consonants could be lost, assimilated.., and most languages don't use morphological orthography. So if I put that bešuman is built as bez-'' + ''šuman, and the template categorizes it in Category:Croatian words beginning with bez-, that would be factually wrong.. --Ivan Štambuk 12:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC) :: How about Category:English words suffixed with -ism instead, and likewise for all others? DAVilla 06:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC) ::: That would be much more precise wording. ::: Also, this raises the question of Derived terms header entries for affixes, as these categories and entries in those lists should be identical. For some extremely productive suffixes, categories make much more sense. If both are to be kept, this could be an opportunity to automate synchronization of these two. --Ivan Štambuk 15:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)